Recent Topics
New CRV, but free oil changes at dealership
by Schmoe
07/28/14 10:26 AM
I want a smoker
by stockrex
07/28/14 10:06 AM
Anyone looking to get the new 2015 GTI?
by jigen
07/28/14 09:31 AM
Sprocket help
by Smoky14
07/28/14 09:28 AM
Wix Beta Ratio
by Stelth
07/28/14 08:59 AM
New struts - Softer ride?
by Spetz
07/28/14 07:45 AM
Gordon's restart strategy - Brickyard 400
by ledslinger
07/28/14 07:35 AM
Amsoil 20W50 5,663 miles in BMW Motorcycle R1100S
by SouthernYankee
07/28/14 07:20 AM
phosphorus question
by dharry
07/28/14 05:48 AM
Replcaing just one injector?
by Spetz
07/28/14 04:01 AM
Craftsman Programmable Digital Tire Gauge $9.99
by Warstud
07/28/14 03:43 AM
Cutting open oil filter...?
by Wordfreak
07/28/14 01:44 AM
Newest Members
kensley, Mirabela, tonyjh63, Samial, TomHh
50785 Registered Users
Who's Online
101 registered (38Chevy454, 123Saab, 87sammy, 05LGTLtd, 147_Grain, 12 invisible), 2147 Guests and 227 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
50785 Members
64 Forums
216942 Topics
3415072 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
#3207792 - 12/05/13 07:33 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: alternety]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 10994
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: alternety
Any simple listing of properties for the materials (try Wikipedia) will show you the relevant characteristics compared to MoS2. Although Wikipedia does not have very much on WS2 compared to how much they have for MoS2.

Mola is the last person here who needs instruction in basic chemistry. And that isn't what he's asking for. You and others have made an assertion. It's up to those who make such assertions to corroborate them.

When one goes to defend his PhD thesis, he doesn't tell the committee to do the research themselves and that the physics is obvious.

Besides the physics, where are the statistically significant studies of results? We don't always know why something works, but we know it does.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3208595 - 12/06/13 02:02 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14091
Loc: Midwest
Quote:
alternety: Warning, I am going to be quite snippy here:I just don't get it; but I am getting real tired of it. I have simply been trying to provide helpful information to people in the best lubrication they can get for their personal or commercial uses. I am just a civilian; affiliated with no one. I have no pony in this race. And I get a bunch of c***.


Take a chill pill dude and drop the attitude.


Quote:
alternety: Have you tried following the link to a document on Springerlink I posted near the end of that thread?


I have read it, have you? I was attempting to find out what you knew about the physics of WS surface interactions.

Have you even read my remarks on ammonium Tunsgates? I was offering a ready made alternative.

Quote:
alternety: Please have the courtesy of at least learning before attacking.


I am glad you are interested in nanoparticles and surface science.

You can learn more about this topic here:

1. Martin, et. al., (2008) Nanolubricants, Tribology Series, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., England.

2. Greenwood, (1998) Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 202(1), pp. 11-17.

3. Gao, et. al., (1995) Science, 270(5236), pp. 605-608.


Edited by MolaKule (12/06/13 02:05 PM)
_________________________
I told a chemistry joke....there was no reaction. smile

Top
#3209021 - 12/06/13 09:17 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 137
Loc: Pacific NW
Ah, MolaKule - I remember you and another poster well from the long thread I started. It is actually the remembered behavior of you and that other person together with your posts here that prompted my post to which you object. I did not initially associate your name with those earlier posts, but I have since reviewed them. The underlying themes were to simply dismiss all sources of information as unbelievable and beneath notice, you knew things could not be true because of your experience and education, and then would detail things irrelevant to the issue at hand (in my opinion).

I would be happy to chill.

My last straw happened to be in this thread. Whatever your internal reasoning, I now believe you were simply baiting me for whatever reason you had.

For those reading this, please first read the 4 posts on this page of this thread starting at 3205172 - 12/03/13 02:08 PM above.

I responded to what I considered to be an irrelevant question from someone (MolaKule) with no understanding who would not read the suggested information. I replied in the terms (physics) used in his question, which I may have used at some point as a simplification, to continue the context. Effectively I was dismissing the post. I do not keep a running list in my head of who is a trained expert and who is not. Nor was I insulting.

MolaKule's response about that from the post above:

I have read it, have you? I was attempting to find out what you knew about the physics of WS surface interactions.

Have you even read my remarks on ammonium Tunsgates? I was offering a ready made alternative.

My take on that. I have stated numerous times that I am not and expert nor am I "in the field". And I did not read it - I spent a few hours searching for it only because people who simply would not believe other references (which I believe to be quite adequate and authoritative) wanted more.

My internal response to his first line had to be, and was, just who does he think he is to do that for that reason. I am not in grad school anymore and he is not my adviser nor anyone approving the granting of my degree. Sorry, you don't have the right. You can do it, of course, but it is not your place.

Second line: Have you even read my remarks on ammonium Tunsgates?

Yes I did read it. It was completely irrelevant to the purpose of these discussions. As were so many in my original thread and somewhat in this and other threads on the topic. People, mostly I think, are here looking for the best lubricant for their engines. There are, of course professionals, as well, but it is helpful (and from what I have seen, generally done)to help the least common denominators (like me) understand.

To help us all MolaKule, could you please cite a source of the appropriate ammonium Tunsgates at a readily accessible US serving retail source (bricks and mortar or online), publicly available documentation (not from a manufacturer, retailer, or patent application) proving their superiority over the IF WS2. When doing so, please do not disregard the IF; it probably matters. Which IS the point of this and other similar threads.

I don't believe I have ever seen a comparison between properties of (<60nm) WS2 vs IF WS2. I suspect they are pretty similar; but hard to manufacture. Making them as a Graphene like sheet and breaking the sheet up appears to work for <60nm.

As a side note, you refer to moly in oil. To a significant number of consumers participating in these threads, moly means MoS2. You really should try to be more rigorous in your terminology to be understandable to all of the participants (Mo is even shorter to type than moly). It confused me for a while (e.g., soluble moly). I would also suggest explaining a bit more about things requiring a significant understanding of some chemical reactions. For example: at least one of your Mo based materials becomes WS2 (not IF WS2 of course) in the heat of the engine. It would be interesting to know how much of the material is actually converted in normal use.

And lastly: MolaKule says, I am glad you are interested in nanoparticles and surface science.

Wrong again, and probably written with a different intended meaning (remember, being paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you). Generally I like to learn things. I do understand that in the not so distant future worms will be eating that knowledge. I try to keep somewhat informed on lots of technical things, just because it entertains my mind. I am retired. I don't HAVE to do anything, and I really don't have any burning desire for any further education into this area beyond what allows me to decide on a path to resolving something I want to do. Lubricating things. And I have found what I consider to be satisfactory and credible information allowing me to do that.

I like to keep some level of understanding in quantum physics progress as well as particle physics, and a bunch of other things. But I am certainly no expert and I will not entertain questions in these areas. And I have never done a bit of research on the net and recommended processes in those areas or improvements to the people trying for sustainable fusion. I believe I know where to keep quiet. I did consider suggesting to the people with the broken reactors in Japan that they use RO filters to extract the radionuclides and simply dispose of the resulting water with short half life Tritium to fix their water storage problem. Some research (on the net of all things) showed that they were already taking a shot at that. But the real world/practical understanding of the variants of WS2; that is not all that hard (don't - I said practical). And I really do not understand why many of the "arguments" occur.

I am currently concentrating my attention on automobile headlights (my wife just bought a Honda CR-V that has headlights that Honda should be deeply ashamed to provide - in earlier days should have required ritual suicide), replacing my range hood make up air fan motor with a 3 phase 220V motor and controlling it with a VFC and (maybe embedded) PID capable PLC driven by a differential pressure sensor.

Next week I will take a bit of time out to get an oil change and add IF WS2 to the Honda. I am still trying to find some IF WS2 powder.

As another side note: The "other" non-believing poster I referenced on the thread I started responded to my post asking if anyone had read the springerlink reference beyond the paywall. The responding post on 10/28 was "I have the article open on my computer right now. No time to discuss. Will later.". No further posts, no response to my PM asking what the results of reading it were.

Perhaps interesting. Perhaps just lack of interest or time.

Whatever. These are the reasons I wrote what I wrote. I just got sick and tired of extraneous, and baseless (for the intended subject and audience) posts that served no purpose but to disrupt things. Never useful help. And generally based on not actually taking in and mentally processing what was being discussed in any useful manner. While expert input is always desired and respected, it needs to be current, relevant, and correct. Even experts should make an effort to review how it is rather than how it was or what their particular segment of the field has been pursuing. And lighten up about acceptable references. Dismissing the work of pioneers in the field is just- hmm, I am looking for a word here - ineffective.

Respectfully submitted.

alternety

Top
#3209086 - 12/06/13 10:51 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14091
Loc: Midwest
I am not sure what you said up there but I posted in the IF WS2 thread this:

Quote:
Molakule: What exactly are you trying to do? Lubricant chemistry is much more than just concentrating on one component or additive chemistry.

Many times one needs a synergistic co-additive in order to make a specific additive work properly.

RT Vanderbilt has an organotungstate:

http://www.rtvanderbilt.com/VANLUBE_W324_TDS.pdf

and Alfa Aesar may have the powder. I do not know what the particle size might be.


As a formulator for more than 20 years, it appeared that to me that you were not understanding the complete picture of how lubrication engineering is done, but simply fixating on a narrow aspect or one component of lubrication.


Quote:
JHZR2 stated this:
No way Id add a powder to my oil without knowing the wetting characteristics and shear behaviors really well. All you need is a powder semi-dispersed that clogs, or one that shear thickens.

A product in a tried carrier like LM MoS2 is far more trustworthy, and Ill bet it is splitting hairs between ubiquitous and cheap MoS2 and rare WS2. Ill bet the ROI doesnt exist to justify trying it!


You responded thus:

Quote:
alternety : JHZR2 - The lubricity of WS2 is not a theory. It is a well known and measured physical property. It is noticeably slipperier than MoS2. I do not believe that milling has any part in manufacturing IF WS2.


JHZR2 never said any thing about whether it is a theory or not. His experience and expertise was advising you of potential pitfalls.


Quote:
JHZR2 said later: OP: there have been, and are a ton of companies specializing in "nano" and are long out of business. Just because someone came up with a process, or has a patent, or whatever, doesnt mean that the stuff is good, best, or practical.

I applaud you with wanting to learn about the stuff and try to use it.

I also recommend reading up keenly on PPE, as nanoparticles can be a lot more hazardousthan bigger stuff.

I am still of the mind that practically speaking, there may be no real benefit over usin MoS2. Even the charts at apnano were fairly nondescript and generic, nothing indicating any relevant part of the real physics at play here.

I am fully aware that the frictional characteristics are known and that WS2 is more lubricious. I have experience with its use.

But again, now youre talking about milling. Are you going to mill it? Milling is an art in and of itself. I spent a lot of time working with R&D engineers on this... The power input to get the particles down to size is enormous and exponentially grows.

And just mixing something in doesnt mean much. Ever put hot chocolate powder into water and it "kind of" mix. Youll need a high shear mixer.

And again, be careful of PPE if truly working with nano powders, even if dispersed.


As to the your comment about Moly derivatives I stated this:

Quote:
MoS2 doesn't not have graphite as it's base if you're talking about the powder form. Much as been written about MoS2 in the early papers in the periodical WEAR and it forms flat sliding surfaces like slick shingles sliding over each other.

MoDTC is a soluble version that has been extensively used in all modern lubricants as a friction modifier and antioxidant, and it is synergstoc with ZDDP.

Personally, I am betting on the newer polmers such as the polymer esters and ionized vegetable esters, and the dibutyldithiocarbamates as the better friction modifiers and anti-wear additives as the next generation multifunctional additives.


because you seemed to have a misunderstanding of moly derivatives.

Quote:
Gmorg (another chemist) stated this:

The link I provided above is for a mean size of 90nm.

I don't recommend either product.


And then you made a SMC about CYA.

Quote:
Gmorg replied: From the link above:
"The nanoparticles in the Millers Oils have multiple layers of nested spheres, and are less than 1/10th of a micron in size (0.000004”). The nested spheres resemble onion layers, which can exfoliate under extreme pressure and form a protective tribofilm on the metal surfaces. Due to the tremendous surface area, the nanospheres will migrate to and “stick” to the walls of lubricated components."


This discription sounds like fullerenes to me. If the core technology is not a buckey ball, then they should get some sort of award for marketing speak.

As for my lack of recommendation for sheet type-solid additives (MoS2 or WS2), it is not a CYA. I don't care for the idea of a suspended solid that can aggregate within all of the other material that collects in heat damaged oils. In addition, planar crystals can also approach wear surfaces on the perpendicular. Some graphite preparations can increase wear in certain circumstances by this mechanism. The analogy with playing cards still holds up, but instead of making contact on the flat side and sliding, the particles hit edgewise and create the equivalent to a paper cut.

I'm intrigued with the fullerenes. However, I am concerned that with extended use, disturbed spheres will become sheets. Luckily, they will still be much smaller than anything that starts as a sheet-type crystal.


Quote:
Alternety: As a side note, you refer to moly in oil. To a significant number of consumers participating in these threads, moly means MoS2. You really should try to be more rigorous in your terminology to be understandable to all of the participants (Mo is even shorter to type than moly). It confused me for a while (e.g., soluble moly). I would also suggest explaining a bit more about things requiring a significant understanding of some chemical reactions. For example: at least one of your Mo based materials becomes WS2 (not IF WS2 of course) in the heat of the engine. It would be interesting to know how much of the material is actually converted in normal use.


A simple search will show I have explained the various moly derivations in good detail.

Quote:
alternety: To help us all MolaKule, could you please cite a source of the appropriate ammonium Tunsgates at a readily accessible US serving retail source (bricks and mortar or online), publicly available documentation (not from a manufacturer, retailer, or patent application) proving their superiority over the IF WS2. When doing so, please do not disregard the IF; it probably matters.


The soluble Tungstates as I have previously stated are not currently available OTC. They are only available to formulators and additive companies who know how to handle and process these chemicals.

But then again, since you dismiss my comments and comments from others who are knowledgeable in this field, why do you now care?


Believe it or not alternety, we were attempting to find out what you were trying to do, determine your application, warn you about potential pitfalls, and knowing that, suggest possible solutions.


Edited by MolaKule (12/06/13 10:55 PM)
_________________________
I told a chemistry joke....there was no reaction. smile

Top
#3209164 - 12/07/13 01:36 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 137
Loc: Pacific NW
Thank you for verifying.

Top
#3209259 - 12/07/13 08:22 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: alternety]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 476
Loc: North Bend
A quick question to Molakule:

In this (or maybe another) thread, a user thoughtfully directed readers to this useful Petroleum Quality Institute chart. If you scan across the page, moly (in some form or other) and many other additives are widely used. The results were obtained by oil analysis - PQI even specifies when and where they bought their samples.

My question is, will oil analysis reveal the form of the additive in use? For example MoS2 versus soluble moly?
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3209443 - 12/07/13 12:44 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 137
Loc: Pacific NW
I will now indeed chill. I started this flurry. Sorry about that. I did not intend it to explode.

Top
#3209573 - 12/07/13 02:57 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: dave5358]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14091
Loc: Midwest
Originally Posted By: dave5358
A quick question to Molakule:

In this (or maybe another) thread, a user thoughtfully directed readers to this useful Petroleum Quality Institute chart. If you scan across the page, moly (in some form or other) and many other additives are widely used. The results were obtained by oil analysis - PQI even specifies when and where they bought their samples.

My question is, will oil analysis reveal the form of the additive in use? For example MoS2 versus soluble moly?


Good question.

Oil analysis will not reveal the exact type of moly used.

However, most commercial additive packages that I am aware of use the soluble moly or MoDTC because it is completly soluble, doesn't "fall out," and only low levels of this component are needed to reduce friction.
_________________________
I told a chemistry joke....there was no reaction. smile

Top
#3209579 - 12/07/13 03:01 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14091
Loc: Midwest
No problem. Just a minor misunderstanding among interested parties. smile
_________________________
I told a chemistry joke....there was no reaction. smile

Top
#3220011 - 12/17/13 09:10 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
dareo Offline


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 442
Loc: utah
This stuff has been used in gun lubes and seems to build up a slicker surface over time. I'm not sure if i would want it in engine oil, but it has demonstrated itself to me in firearms.

Top
#3231588 - 12/30/13 05:15 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: expat]
Trav Offline


Registered: 11/20/06
Posts: 9151
Loc: MA, Mittelfranken.de
Originally Posted By: expat
Castrol in the UK, in the 70's advertised their GTX had
"Liquid Tungsten"


Maybe even before that.
_________________________
ASE L1, Master. Deutsch Meisterbrief.

Top
#3231639 - 12/30/13 08:14 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: Trav]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 476
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: expat
Castrol in the UK, in the 70's advertised their GTX had
"Liquid Tungsten"


Maybe even before that.


I remember that in the US as well. I always just assumed it was ad-man hype. But, who knows?
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3246094 - 01/12/14 05:09 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 137
Loc: Pacific NW
Tungsten Disulphide has been around a long time. MoS2 is far more common because it was cheaper. The nano versions are relatively new. The Fullerenes (in retail commerce), quite new.

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3